The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emerald-library.com

Intellectual capital and IC in Malaysian

industries
business performance in
Malaysian industries
Nick Bontis 85
Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University; Director,
Institute for Intellectual Capital Research, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
William Chua Chong Keow
Department of American Degree Program, HELP Institute, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Stanley Richardson
Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Selangor, Malaysia
Keywords Intellectual capital, Human capital, Structural capital, Customer capital,
Partial least squares
Abstract The purpose of this empirical study is to investigate the three elements of intellectual
capital, i.e. human capital, structural capital, and customer capital, and their inter-relationships
within two industry sectors in Malaysia. The study was conducted using a psychometrically
validated questionnaire which was originally administered in Canada. The main conclusions from
this particular study are that: human capital is important regardless of industry type; human
capital has a greater influence on how a business should be structured in non-service industries
compared to service industries; customer capital has a significant influence over structural capital
irrespective of industry; and finally, the development of structural capital has a positive
relationship with business performance regardless of industry. The final specified models in this
study show a robust explanation of business performance variance within the Malaysian context
which bodes well for future research in alternative contexts.

Introduction
The global community is being progressively shrunk by technology
(Richardson, 1991). The two major forces that Malaysian businesses currently
face include the rapid rate of technological change and increasing
industrialisation. The rate of change is likely to accelerate in the near future led
by developments in the country's multimedia super corridor (MSC). The MSC
links the present capital, Kuala Lumpur, with its new Kuala Lumpur
International Airport (KLIA) some 50 kilometres away. The MSC is destined to
become Malaysia's ``Silicon Valley'' and its existing palm oil estates are giving
way to new industries and research-intensive universities.
Unfortunately, most Malaysian industries are still ± for the most part ±
using traditional financial accounting and performance measurement methods
The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the respondents and their institutions,
and especially the assistance given by colleagues in the Multimedia University, HELP Institute
Journal of Intellectual Capital,
and the Institute for Intellectual Capital Research. An earlier version of this paper was presented Vol. 1 No. 1, 2000, pp. 85-100.
at the 7th Tun Abdul Razak International Conference, December 1999 in Penang, Malaysia. # MCB University Press, 1469-1930
JIC which were developed centuries ago for an environment of arm's-length
1,1 transactions using primarily tangible assets such as buildings and equipment.
The knowledge-based business environment that Malaysia and most other
countries are currently developing requires a new model and nomenclature that
encompass intangible assets. In this case, the intellectual capital (IC) model is
receiving increased attention.
86 Although much IC research has been conducted in a variety of international
settings including the UK (Roos et al., 1997), Scandinavia (Edvinsson and
Malone, 1997), Australia (Sveiby, 1997), Canada (Bontis, 1996; 1998; 1999),
Austria (Bornemann, 1999) and the USA (Stewart, 1997; Bassi and van Buren,
1999), none seems to have been made in Malaysia. There should be no doubt that
these intangibles have a value since, when Malaysian businesses are sold, part
of their value is also labelled as ``goodwill''. According to Horibe (1999), goodwill
is the difference between a ``company's worth'' and its ``book value''. This is often
calculated by using the Tobin's q ratio (Bontis, 1996). In some businesses,
particularly in the services sector where a large proportion of the workforce is
employed, goodwill could represent the major asset of the company.
IC management is important even if countries have a lower proportion of
their workforce in non-services industries. Horibe (1999) reports that in the
manufacturing sector, the value of goodwill based on a company's worth had
also increased from 38 per cent in 1982 to 62 per cent in 1992. The Malaysian
situation is somewhat different in that the most recent 1999 estimates show
that 37.5 per cent of the workforce is in the services sector which is the highest
proportion in history (New Straits Times, 2000a).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the inter-relationship among
intellectual capital measures within the Malaysian business context. As an
extension of the Bontis (1998) study, we hope to support a similar set of
hypotheses. We propose that there exists a positive relationship between sub-
constructs of intellectual capital and business performance regardless of
industry.

Literature review
Since there are other sources (Bontis, 1999; Roos et al., 1997) which have
extensively reviewed the IC literature, the focus of this paper will efficiently
turn to defining the constructs we intend to measure. The following definitions
by a variety of researchers summarise some of the highlights of this field:
. IC is elusive, but once it is discovered and exploited, it may provide an
organisation with a new resource-base from which to compete and win
(Bontis, 1996);
. IC is the term given to the combined intangible assets of market,
intellectual property, human-centred and infrastructure ± which enable
the company to function (Brooking, 1996);
. IC includes all the processes and the assets which are not normally
shown on the balance-sheet and all the intangible assets (trademarks,
 patents and brands) which modern accounting methods consider . . . it IC in Malaysian
includes the sum of the knowledge of its members and the practical industries
translation of his/her knowledge (Roos et al., 1997);
. IC is intellectual material ± knowledge, information, intellectual
property, experience ± that can be put to use to create wealth. It is a
collective brainpower or packaged useful knowledge (Stewart, 1997);
87
. IC is the pursuit of effective use of knowledge (the finished product) as
opposed to information (the raw material) (Bontis, 1998); and
. IC is regarded as an element of the company's market value as well as a
market premium (Olve et al., 1999).
Cohen et al. (1993) warn that, just like the human body's muscles, IC suffers
from ``if you do not use it, you lose it''. The Gottlieb Duttweiler Foundation (a
Swiss think-tank) undertook studies into IC and found that only 20 per cent of
knowledge available to an organisation is actually used (Brooking, 1996). It is
within this context that the desire to model and measure IC originates.
Researchers and practitioners alike are enamoured by the vast opportunity that
IC can offer for both knowledge generation and value-added services
respectively. Generally, researchers in the field have identified three main
constructs of IC that include: human capital, structural capital and customer
capital.

Human capital
Quite simply, human capital represents the individual knowledge stock of an
organisation as represented by its employees (Bontis et al., 2001 forthcoming).
Roos et al. (1997) argue that employees generate IC through their competence,
their attitude and their intellectual agility. Competence includes skills and
education, while attitude covers the behavioural component of the employees'
work. Intellectual agility enables one to change practices and to think of
innovative solutions to problems. Even though employees are considered the
most important corporate asset in a learning organisation, they are not owned
by the organisation. Slavery is over after all, but there is still tremendous
argument as to whether new knowledge generated by employees belongs to the
company or not (i.e. a software programmer develops code while at home on the
weekend yet the company still lays claim to the codified knowledge).
Similarly, Hudson (1993) defines human capital as a combination of: genetic
inheritance; education; experience, and attitudes about life and business. Bontis
(1998) describes human capital as the firm's collective capability to extract the
best solutions from the knowledge of its individuals. Unfortunately, people's
departure can result in the loss of corporate memory and hence become a threat
to the organisation. Another school of thought believes that the departure of
some individuals in a firm may be considered good, since it forces the firm to
consider fresh new perspectives from replacement employees.
Bontis (1999) argues that human capital is important because it is a source of
innovation and strategic renewal, whether it is from brainstorming in a
JIC research lab, daydreaming at the office, throwing out old files, re-engineering
1,1 new processes, improving personal skills or developing new leads in a sales
rep's little black book. The essence of human capital is the sheer intelligence of
the organisational member.

Structural capital
88 Structural capital includes all the non-human storehouses of knowledge in
organisations which include the databases, organisational charts, process
manuals, strategies, routines and anything whose value to the company is
higher than its material value. Roos et al. (1997, p. 42) describe structural
capital as ``what remains in the company when employees go home for the
night''. Structural capital arises from processes and organisational value,
reflecting the external and internal focuses of the company, plus renewal and
development value for the future. According to Bontis (1998), if an organisation
has poor systems and procedures by which to track its actions, the overall
intellectual capital will not reach its fullest potential. Organisations with strong
structural capital will have a supportive culture that allows individuals to try
new things, to learn, and to fail. Structural capital is the critical link that allows
IC to be measured at the organisational level of analysis.

Customer capital
The main theme of customer capital is the knowledge embedded in the
marketing channels and customer relationships that an organisation develops
through the course of conducting business. Customer capital represents the
potential an organisation has due to ex-firm intangibles (Bontis, 1999).
Although originally conceptualised by Hubert Saint-Onge while at CIBC, more
recent definitions have broadened the category to include relational capital
which in effect encompasses the knowledge embedded in all the relationships
an organisation develops whether it be from customers, from the competition,
from suppliers, from trade associations or from the government (Bontis, 1999).
One manifestation of relational capital that can be leveraged from customers is
often referred to as ``market orientation''. There is no consensus on a definition
of market orientation but Kohli and Jaworski (1990) define it as the
organisation-wide generation of market intelligence pertaining to the current
and future needs of customers. Ultimately, the dissemination of this intelligence
must be done horizontally and vertically within the organisation so that a
competency in organisation-wide action or responsiveness to market changes
can be developed.
Recent work in the service profit chain has emphasised the causal
relationships among employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, customer
loyalty and financial performance (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). For example, we
know that rapid delivery satisfies customers (Olve et al., 1999). We also know
that companies often have difficulty in retaining employees because they have
not put enough time and energy into ensuring that the mission and values are
truly shared (Senge, 1990). Further research shows that ``customer'' loyalty can
be predicted by measuring ``employee'' loyalty (Horibe, 1999). These studies IC in Malaysian
provide further evidence of the importance that customer capital represents as industries
a unit of an organisation's overall IC.

Summary
A comparison of the elements of IC based on studies by Annie Brooking, GoÈran
Roos, Thomas Stewart and Nick Bontis can be found in Table I. Although 89
definitions and conceptualisations are not entirely identical., the field is starting
to see a convergence of what IC encompasses. All four authors emphasise
strongly the importance of human capital. Brooking, in particular, feels that
managerial skills and leadership styles are the important components of
human capital. Brooking also points out that structural capital can be divided
into two components: namely, infrastructure assets and intellectual property
(IP). In the case of infrastructure assets, Brooking has included all the
technologies and processes which enable a company to function. Roos has
added the importance of culture. Stewart, however, classifies information
technology under this category. Brooking, Roos and Stewart have included
trademarks and patents whereas Bontis, however, has excluded intellectual
property stating that IP is a protected asset and has a legal definition (unlike

Annie Brooking GoÈran Roos Thomas Stewart Nick Bontis

(UK) (UK) (USA) (Canada)

Human-centred assets Human capital Human capital Human capital

Skills, abilities and Competence, attitude, Employees are an The individual-level
expertise, problem- and intellectual organisation's most knowledge that each
solving abilities and agility important asset employee possesses
leadership styles
Infrastructure assets Organisational capital Structural capital Structural capital
All the technologies, All organisational, Knowledge embedded Non-human assets or
processes and innovation, processes, in information organisational
methodologies that intellectual property, technology capabilities used to
enable company to and cultural assets meet market
function requirements
Intellectual property Renewal and Structural capital Intellectual property
Know-how, development capital All patents, plans Unlike IC, IP is a
trademarks and New patents and and trademarks protected asset and
patents training efforts has a legal definition
Market assets Relational capital Customer capital Relational capital
Brands, customers, Relationships which Market information Customer capital is
customer loyalty and include internal and used to capture and only one feature of
distribution channels external stakeholders retain customers the knowledge Table I.
embedded in Comparison of IC
organisational conceptualisations
relationships among authors
JIC the other components of IC). All four authors include customers, their loyalty
1,1 and the market intelligence as part of customer assets.

Development of hypotheses
Malaysian researchers in particular argue that, in their business world,
``knowledge is a necessity and can be used as a strategic tool against
90 competitors'' (Naquiyuddin et al., 1992, p. 72). The number of knowledge
workers and new knowledge-based opportunities is expected to increase
dramatically in the next few years. This new demand will force employers to
further develop employees' competencies (Rischer and Fay, 1995). In Malaysia,
the production-based economy of the 1970s and 1980s led to a focus on
computing activities which forced employers to update the skills of the
workforce in that context. The current emphasis on knowledge-based
economies has prompted the move towards a new skills development initiative
that strives to position Malaysia as a world leader in telecommunications,
multimedia and the Internet (New Straits Times, 2000b).
The aim of this paper is to investigate the inter-relationships among the
independent variables, human capital, structural capital and customer capital
and the dependent variable, business performance. These variables are defined
and conceptualised based on the literature. As an extension of the hypotheses
tested by Bontis (1998), this study aims to examine the following relationships
for both service and non-service industries to see if the results hold true in the
Malaysian context. Based on the final specified model developed by Bontis
(1998), the following hypotheses are tested:
H1: Human capital (HC) is positively associated with customer capital (CC).
H2: Human capital (HC) is positively associated with structural capital (SC).
H3: Customer capital (CC) is positively associated with structural capital
(SC).
H4: Structural capital (SC) is positively associated with business performance
(PERF).

Data collection
The IC questionnaire developed by Bontis (1997) and originally administered in
Canada (Bontis, 1998) was re-administered to 107 respondents in Malaysia. The
respondents were all part-time MBA students from Kuala Lumpur and
Seremban. The questionnaire contained 63 statements to which respondents
indicated the extent of their agreement on a seven-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). See Table II for a summary of these
items.
Respondents were encouraged to ask questions about the purpose of the
survey and to make sure that the meanings of the questions were clear. All
such questions were answered during the administration of the survey. Very
few concerns regarding the meanings of the questions were reported. About 60
per cent of the respondents were from service industries (e.g. financial services,
 Human capital IC in Malaysian
H1 Competence ideal level H11 Employees perform their best industries
H2 Succession training programme H12 Recruitment programme comprehensive
H3 Planners on schedule H13R Big trouble if individuals left
H4 Employees cooperate in teams H14R Rarely think actions through
H5R No internal relationships H15R Do without thinking
H6 Come up with new ideas H16 Individuals learn from others 91
H7 Upgrade employees' skills H17 Employees voice opinions
H8 Employees are bright H18 Get the most out of employees
H9 Employees are best in industry H19R Bring down to others' level
H10 Employees are satisfied H20 Employees give it their all
Customer capital
C1 Customers generally satisfied C10 Meet with customers
C2 Reduce time to resolve problem C11 Customer info disseminated
C3 Market share improving C12 Understand target markets
C4 Market share is highest C13R Do not care what customer wants
C5 Longevity of relationships C14 Capitalize on customers' wants
C6 Value added service C15R Launch what customers don't want
C7 Customers are loyal C16 Confident of future with customer
C8 Customers increasingly select us C17 Feedback with customer
C9 Firm is market-oriented
Structural capital
S1 Lowest cost per transaction S9 Develops most ideas in industry
S2 Improving cost per revenue $ S10 Firm is efficient
S3 Increase revenue per employee S11 Systems allow easy info access
S4 Revenue per employee is best S12 Procedures support innovation
S5 Transaction time decreasing S13R Firm is bureaucratic nightmare
S6 Transaction time is best S14 Not too far removed from each other
S7 Implement new ideas S15 Atmosphere is supportive
S8 Supports development of ideas S16R Do not share knowledge
Performance
P1 Industry leadership P6 After-tax return on assets
P2 Future outlook P7 After-tax return on sales
P3 Profit P8 Overall response to competition
P4 Profit growth P9 Success rate in new product launch
P5 Sales growth P10 Overall business performance Table II.
Summary of survey
Note: R ± reverse coded items items

entertainment, software) and the remaining 40 per cent were from non-service
industries (e.g. construction, production, mechanical engineering). Respondents
came from seven universities within the Malaysian Peninsula. See Table III for
descriptive information.
The questionnaire was eight pages in length and was accompanied by a
covering letter from the university which introduced the concept of IC. The
items were originally developed to encompass the underlying meaning of their
JIC Universities NTU CSU HMC HW UH DU UPM Total
1,1
Non-service industries
Chemical/electrical/ 1 1 ± 1 ± 1 9 13
mechanical engineering
Production 5 1 ± 3 ± 6 5 20
92 Construction/building ± ± ± 2 ± ± 8 10
Sub-total: 6 2 ± 6 ± 7 22 43 (40.2%)
Service industries
Government ± ± ± 1 ± ± 4 5
Financial services ± 3 ± ± 1 ± 12 16
Entertainment/hospitality/ 1 1 2 ± ± ± 2 6
tourism/transportation
Private education 4 1 1 1 1 ± 5 13
Computer and software ± 1 ± ± ± ± 4 5
Professional services 4 5 1 3 ± 1 5 19
Sub-total: 9 11 4 5 2 1 32 64 (59.8%)
Total: 15 13 4 11 2 8 54 107
Gender
Male 11 9 3 10 1 8 44 86 (80.4%)
Female 4 4 1 1 1 ± 10 21 (19.6%)
Total: 15 13 4 11 2 8 54 107
Age
Below 30 years 1 2 ± 2 ± 2 17 24 (22.4%)
31-40 years 4 3 4 6 ± 4 34 55 (51.4%)
Above 40 years 10 8 ± 3 2 2 3 28 (26.2%)
Total: 15 13 4 11 2 8 54 107
Years of managerial experience
Below 5 years 2 4 3 3 ± 4 24 40 (37.4%)
Above 5 years 13 9 1 8 2 4 30 67 (62.6%)
Total: 15 13 4 11 2 8 54 107
Notes:
NTU ± Northern Territory University
CSU ± Charles Sturt University
HMC ± Henley Management College
HW ± Heriot-Watt University
Table III. HU ± University of Hull
Description of DU ± Dubuque University
respondents UPM ± Universiti Putra

respective latent constructs and were not altered from their original form. The
business performance items remained the same as well. Research has shown
that perceived measures of business performance can be:
 . a reasonable substitute for objective measures of performance (Dess and IC in Malaysian
Robinson, 1984); and industries
. have a significant correlation with objective measures of financial
performance (Hansen and Wernerfelt, 1989).
The covering letter asked respondents to ``take on the role as their employer's
representative'' and to respond to items from an overall company perspective. 93
In effect, each respondent acted as a proxy respondent for their whole
organisation. The covering letter also encouraged respondents to provide
feedback on the questionnaire items (i.e. if they were difficult to understand).
No such feedback was received.

Results
The statistical results of this study were based on the methodological
recommendations made by Bontis (1998). First, a ``Cronbach's alpha'' test was
used to evaluate the reliability of the measures as suggested by Nunnally
(1978). Churchill (1979) suggests that this calculation be the first measure one
uses to assess the quality of the instrument. Since a rigorous psychometric
evaluation of the IC instrument had already been conducted in previous
studies, this test was used to confirm those results. Cronbach's alpha can be
considered an adequate index of the inter-item consistency reliability of
independent and dependent variables (Sekaran, 1992). Nunnally (1978)
suggests that constructs have reliability values of 0.7 or greater. The
reliabilities for each of the four constructs in both the service and non-service
contexts were adequate since the Cronbach alpha values for each were
significantly greater than the prescribed 0.7 threshold. The values varied from
0.7384 (``non-service'' human capital) to 0.9680 (``non-service'' performance),
showing that the instrument is sufficiently reliable.
Partial least squares (PLS) is a structural equation modelling technique
typically chosen for handling relatively small data samples. PLS has been used
as a research tool in a variety of settings such as business disciplines (Hulland
and Kleinmuntz, 1994); cooperative ventures (Fornell et al., 1990); global
strategy (Johansson and Yip, 1994); risk-return outcomes (Cool et al., 1989);
geographic scope (Delios and Beamish, 1999) and in intellectual capital
research (Bontis, 1998). Although not so well-known a modeling technique as
LISREL for instance, PLS has as its primary objective the minimisation of error
(Hulland, 1999). The degree to which any particular PLS model accomplishes
this objective can be determined by examining the R-squared values for the
dependent (endogenous) constants. PLS was used to test the IC model within its
nomological network. The four constructs in this study derive their meaning
from both their underlying measures and their antecedent and consequent
relations, giving a researcher the benefit of examining the constructs in an
overall theoretical context. Bontis (1998) reports the benefits of using PLS for
such studies:
JIC The objective in PLS is to maximise the explanation variance. Thus, R2 (r-squared) and the
significance of relationships among constructs are measures indicative of how well a model is
1,1 performing. The conceptual core of PLS is an iterative combination of principal components
analysis relating measures to constructs, and path analysis permitting the construction of a
system of constructs. The hypothesising of relationships between measures and constructs,
and constructs and other constructs is guided by theory. The estimation of the parameters
representing the measurement and path relationships is accomplished using ordinary least
94 squares (OLS) techniques. The first step in PLS is for the researcher to explicitly specify both
the structural model and the construct-to-measures relationships in the measurement model.
The exogenous constructs are consistent with the idea of independent variables (antecedents).
Similarly, the endogenous constructs are consistent with the idea of dependent variables
(consequents). The constructs can be specified as ``formative'' indicators or ``reflective''
indicators. Formative indicators imply a construct that is expressed as a function of the items
(the items form or cause the construct). Reflective indicators imply a construct where the
observable items are expressed as a function of the construct (the items reflect or are
manifestations of the construct). One looks to theory to decide on which type of epistemic or
construct-to-measure relationship to specify. In this case, all constructs were ``reflective''
indicators. Once specified, the measurement and structural parameters are estimated using
an iterative process of OLS, simple and multiple regressions. The process continues until the
differences in the component scores converge within certain criteria (Bontis, 1998, p. 69).
In this study, the sample size of 107 respondents is high enough for PLS. One of
the key benefits of using PLS as a structural modelling technique is that it may
work with smaller samples. In general, the most complex regression will
involve:
(1) the indicators on the most complex formative construct; or
(2) the largest number of antecedent constructs leading to an endogenous
construct.
Sample size requirements become at least ten times the number of predictors
from (1) or (2), whichever is greater (Barclay et al., 1995). There were no
formative indicators, so it is the second requirement that must be met. The
largest number of antecedent constructs leading to an endogenous construct is
three (3 * 10 = 30). Thirty is well below the total sample size of 107 or either of
the sub-samples (service industries: n = 64, non-service industries: n = 43).
The face validity of measures was assessed by examining the loadings, or
simple correlations, of the measures with their respective construct. A rule of
thumb is to accept items with loadings of 0.7 or more, which implies more
shared variance between the construct and its measures than error variance
(Carmines and Zeller, 1979). All of the remaining items in Table IV had
loadings over the 0.7 threshold.
To assess the statistical significance of the path coefficients, which are
standardized betas, a jack-knife analysis was performed using a programme
developed by Fornell and Barclay (1983). The use of jack-knifing, as opposed to
traditional t-tests, allows the testing of the significance of parameter estimates
from data which are not assumed to be multivariate normal.
H1 tested the relationship between human capital and customer capital. The
results in Table V show a positive, substantive and significant beta coefficient
of 0.798 (p < 0.01) for the service sample and 0.799 (p < 0.01) for the non-service
 Human capital (HC) Structural capital (SC) Customer capital (CC) Performance (PERF)
Service Non-service Service Non-service Service Non-service Service Non-service

Cronbach's alpha test for reliability

0.7984 0.7384 0.8429 0.8289 0.9152 0.8411 0.9487 0.9680

Remaining items with loading values > 0.7

H3 0.7916 H6 0.8359 S7 0.7464 S7 0.8305 C5 0.8752 C1 0.7029 P2 0.7489 P1 0.7962
H8 0.8094 H7 0.7600 S9 0.7009 S8 0.7456 C6 0.7374 C10 0.8971 P3 0.8888 P2 0.8070
H10 0.7613 H10 0.8458 S10 0.7778 S9 0.7987 C7 0.8119 C11 0.8615 P4 0.8926 P3 0.9317
H11 0.7493 H11 0.8577 S11 0.7512 S10 0.7117 C10 0.7815 C14 0.7364 P5 0.8822 P4 0.8910
H20 0.8271 H20 0.7443 S12 0.8460 S15 0.7160 C11 0.7145 P6 0.8375 P5 0.9414
C14 0.7819 P7 0.9091 P6 0.9238
C16 0.8447 P8 0.7961 P7 0.9173
C17 0.7779 P9 0.8158 P8 0.9046
P10 0.8549 P9 0.8482
P10 0.8310

IC in Malaysian
Statistical highlights

industries
Table IV.

95
JIC Human Human Customer
1,1 capital capital capital Structural
? ? ? capital Average
Path Customer Structural Structural ? R-squared for
from ? to capital capital capital Performance model

Model 1 0.798 0.304 0.496 0.262

96 Service (17.93) (1.25) (2.51) (2.34) 32.1%
industries *** ** **

Model 2 0.799 0.525 0.441 0.105

Non-service (12.43) (4.87) (3.50) (1.79) 37.3%
industries *** *** *** *

Comparison Virtually Lower for Almost Higher for Similar

(see Figure 1) identical service similar service explanatory
industries industries power
Notes:
Top number is standardised beta coefficient
Table V. t-stat in brackets
Path coefficients * significant at p < 0.10; ** significant at p < 0.05; *** significant at p < 0.01

sample. H2 tested the relationship between human capital and structural

capital. The results show a positive (but not significant) beta coefficient of 0.304
for the service sample and a positive and significant beta coefficient of 0.525
(p < 0.01) for the non-service sample. H3 tested the relationship between
customer capital and structural capital. The results show a positive,
substantive and significant beta coefficient of 0.496 (p < 0.01) for the service
sample and 0.441 (p < 0.01) for the non-service sample. Finally, H4 tested the
relationship between structural capital and business performance. The results
show a positive and significant beta coefficient of 0.262 (p < 0.05) for the service
sample and 0.105 (p < 0.1) for the non-service sample. Furthermore, the
explanatory power for both models was relatively strong at 32.1 per cent for the
service sample and 37.3 per cent for the non-service sample.

Discussion
The results from this research study are largely as expected but importantly
encouraging. The results related to H1 clearly show that the positive
relationship between human capital and customer capital is important
regardless of industry type. The beta coefficients for this relationship shown in
Figure 1 clearly indicate that this path is robust for both Model 1 (service
industries) and Model 2 (non-service industries). This relationship was by far
the strongest overall in the model. This is an encouraging result because it
implies that senior managers ± regardless of industry sector ± must realise the
full potential of their organisation's human capital in order to establish a strong
market orientation for their customers. In other words, the more competent an
 Model 1: Service Industries (n = 64) IC in Malaysian
Overall Average R-squared = 32.1%
industries
Human
Capital
0.304

0.798 97

0.496 0.262
Customer Structural Business
Capital Capital Performance

Model 2: Non-service Industries (n = 43)

Overall Average R-squared = 37.3%

Human
Capital
0.525

0.799

0.441 0.105
Customer Structural Business
Capital Capital Performance

not significant

significant at p < 0.1

Figure 1.
significant at p < 0.05
Service and non-service
significant at p < 0.01 models

organisation's employees, the better they will understand customers' needs and
develop customer capital to retain their loyalty.
The results related to H2 show that the relationship between human capital
and structural capital differs depending on the industry sector. The beta
coefficients for this relationship shown in Figure 1 indicate that this path is
positive but not significant for Model 1 (service industries) but substantive and
significant for Model 2 (non-service industries). This result implies that
organisations in non-service industries have a better capability for
transforming individual employee knowledge into non-human knowledge. In
other words, much of the intellectual capital in non-service industries is
absorbed in the large capital outlays (i.e. machinery and equipment) found in
construction and other manufacturing-intensive industries. The non-significant
JIC path between human and structural capital in service industries implies that
1,1 there still remains an enormous challenge for knowledge-intensive
organisations (i.e. entertainment and software) to codify or externalise (Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995) much of the tacit resident in employees' minds.
The results related to H3 show that the relationship between customer
capital and structural capital is consistent across industry sectors. The beta
98 coefficients for this relationship indicate that this path is positive, substantive
and significant for both Model 1 (service industries) and Model 2 (non-service
industries). This result implies that all organisations regardless of industry
which invest heavily in becoming customer-focused and market-driven will
ultimately create efficient organisational routines and processes that service
their clientele well.
Finally, the results related to H4 show that the relationship between
structural capital and business performance is important regardless of
industry. The beta coefficients for this relationship indicate that this path is
positive and significant for Model 1 (service industries) but only less
substantive and significant for Model 2 (non-service industries). This result
implies that organisations' efforts to codify organisational knowledge and
thereby further develop their structural capital ultimately yield a sustainable
competitive advantage. This advantage translates itself into relatively higher
business performance.
Another important implication for senior managers is that there must exist a
constant interplay among human, structural and customer capital for an
organisation to leverage its complete knowledge base (Bontis, 1998). The
results from this Malaysian study confirm similar results found by Bontis in
other research settings. Isolated stocks of knowledge that reside in employees'
minds that are never codified into organisational knowledge will never
positively affect business performance. In other words, it is not enough for an
organisation to hire and promote the brightest individuals it can find. An
organisation must also support and nurture bright individuals into sharing
their human capital through organisational learning and externalisation into
information systems.
Conclusion
The results of this research programme should be very beneficial to both
academics and practitioners. Academics in the policy and accounting areas
have traditionally been very interested in how intangible assets reflect on the
performance of firms. The first phase of this study thus far has shown that
intellectual capital has a significant and substantive relationship with business
performance regardless of industry sector. Future research may show that this
link can be generalized to other countries and virtually all industries.
Furthermore, a training tool that is gaining widespread use by senior managers
and CKOs (chief knowledge officers) alike (Bontis, 2000; Mitchell and Bontis,
2000) is the TANGO simulation developed by Karl-Erik Sveiby. Research has
shown that this simulation game significantly improves the perceived
importance of developing intellectual capital metrics among its participants
(Bontis and Girardi, 2000) and could prove to be quite useful in further IC in Malaysian
enhancing the intellectual capital management skills of Malaysian managers. industries
It is further concluded that the IC instrument (Bontis, 1997) used in this
study is appropriate for this kind of research in Malaysia which can pave the
road for future administrations in other multinational settings. The next phase
of this ongoing research will use the same methodology with a larger sample
drawn from various countries and more industries. 99
References
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995), ``The partial least squares (PLS) approach to
causal modeling'', Technology Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2.
Bassi, L. and van Buren, M. (1999), ``Valuing investments in intellectual capital'', International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 18 No. 5/6/7/8, pp. 414-32.
Bontis, N. (1996), ``There's a price on your head: managing intellectual capital strategically'',
Business Quarterly, Summer, pp. 40-47.
Bontis, N. (1997), Intellectual Capital Questionnaire, Institute for Intellectual Capital Research
Inc., Hamilton, Canada.
Bontis, N. (1998), ``Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models'',
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-76.
Bontis, N. (1999), ``Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital:
framing and advancing the state of the field'', International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 18 No. 5/6/7/8, pp. 433-62.
Bontis, N. (2000), ``CKO wanted ± evangelical skills necessary: a review of the chief knowledge
officer position'', Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, in press.
Bontis, N. and Girardi, J. (2000), ``Teaching knowledge management and intellectual capital
lessons: an empirical examination of the TANGO simulation'', International Journal of
Technology Management, forthcoming.
Bontis, N., Crossan, M. and Hulland, J. (2001), ``Managing an organizational learning system by
aligning stocks and flows'', Journal of Management Studies, forthcoming.
Bornemann, M. (1999), ``Potential of value systems according to the VAIC method'', International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 18 No. 5/6/7/8, pp. 463-75.
Brooking, A. (1996), Intellectual Capital ± Core Asset for the Third Millennium Enterprise,
International Thomson Business Press, London, Vol. 8 No. 12-13, p. 76.
Carmines, E. and Zeller, R. (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage Paper Series on
Quantitative Applications No. 07-017, Sage Publications Inc., Beverly Hills, CA.
Churchill, G. (1979), ``A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs'',
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Cohen, G., Kiss, G. and Le Voi, M. (1993), Memory ± Current Issues, Open University,
Buckingham.
Cool, K., Dierickx, I. and Jemison, D. (1989), ``Business strategy, market structure and risk-return
relationships: a structural approach'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 6,
pp. 507-22.
Delios, A. and Beamish, P. (1999), ``Geographic scope, product diversification, and the corporate
performance of Japanese firms'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 711-27.
Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. (1984), ``Measuring organisational performance in the absence of
objective measures: the case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit'',
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 265-73.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997), Intellectual Capital, Harper Business, New York, NY.
JIC Fornell, C. and Barclay, D. (1983), Jack-knifing: A Supplement to Lohmoller's LVPLS Program,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
1,1 Fornell, C., Lorange, P. and Roos, J. (1990), ``The cooperative venture formation process: a latent
variable structural modeling approach'', Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1246-55.
Hansen, G. and Wernerfelt, B. (1989), ``Determinants of firm performance in relative importance
of economic and organisational factors'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5.
Horibe, F. (1999), Managing Knowledge Workers ± New Skills and Attitudes to Unlock the
100 Intellectual Capital in Your Organisation, John Wiley & Sons, Toronto.
Hudson, W. (1993), Intellectual Capital: How to Build It, Enhance It, Use It, John Wiley, New York,
NY.
Hulland, J. (1999), ``Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review
of four recent studies'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 195-203.
Hulland, J.S. and Kleinmuntz, D.N. (1994), ``Factors influencing the use of internal summary
evaluations versus external information in choice'', Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 79-102.
Johansson, J. and Yip, G. (1994), ``Exploiting globalization potential: US and Japanese strategies'',
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 579-601.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), Translating Strategy into Action ± The Balanced Scorecard,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), ``Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,
and managerial implications'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18.
Mitchell, M. and Bontis, N. (2000), ``A CKO's raison d'eÃtre: driving value-based performance gains
by aligning human capital with business strategy'', in Bonner, D. (Ed.), Knowledge
Management in Practice: Chief Knowledge Officers and Chief Learning Officers, ASTD,
Washington, DC.
Naquiyuddin, T.N.C.P. and Heong, L.H. (1992), Malaysian Entrepreneurs, Malaysian Institute of
Management, Kuala Lumpur.
New Straits Times (2000a), ``Service sector continues to be biggest employer'', 14 January.
New Straits Times (2000b), ``Shift in employment trend in the computer industry'', 19 January.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd. ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Olve, N.G., Roy, J. and Wetter, M. (1999), A Practical Guide to Using the Balanced Scorecard ±
Performance Drivers, John Wiley & Son, Chichester.
Richardson, S. (1991), South East Asian Management, Singapore University Press, Singapore.
Rischer, H. and Fay, C. (1995), The Performance Imperative ± Strategies for Enhancing
Workforce Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Roos, G., Roos, J., Edvinsson, L. and Dragonetti, N.C. (1997), Intellectual Capital ± Navigating in
the New Business Landscape, New York University Press, New York, NY.
Sekaran, V. (1992), Research Methods for Business, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation,
Doubleday Currency, New York, NY.
Stewart, T. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Doubleday/Currency,
New York, NY.
Sveiby, K.E. (1997), The New Organisational Wealth ± Managing and Measuring Knowledge-
based Assets, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.